MG42 AR15/M16 Upper???

Ask your build questions here. Welding, assembly, etc.

MG42 AR15/M16 Upper???

Postby xtal01 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:03 pm

Earlier this year, after looking over this site, I got the bug to build a MG42 semi. I purchased a 308 kit from Dan at Angola. Since them my interests have changed a bit.

I got a good deal on a few full auto (registered) sub-guns. They have been fun but now I am thinking of selling them and moving up.

I want a full auto MG42 (or 34) but they are out of my price range. If I sell my guns, I can afford an M16 (or converted AR15).

This would let me buy an MG34 upper from BRP and get a belt feed gun out of it.

Problem .... Upper costs $4200 ... almost half the price of the M16.

I am looking for some information:

1) Is there any reason why an MG 42 can't be used instead of and MG 34 for a belt feed upper on an M16?

2) If I must use an MG34, is there plans out there on how to convert it like the BRP model?

I am guessing the BRP model must accually be regarded as a semi-auto gun since it is shipped only to FFL holders. When mated with an M16 lower, it becomes an MG (may need to change the bolt just as you do on an M16).

If I am correct, could I do the same thing (of coarse I would have to ask the BATF and get their blessing) with an MG42? I could build it as a semi and then mate it with a registered M16 lower.

I have a lathe, mill and a mig/tig welder (just putting power to them in my new workshop). I also have a fair amount of time on my hands. My wife is handicapped and requires amost constant care. When not at work, I am around the house (usually in my work shop).

It would be nice to save $4200 and make my own upper (plus I like to make my own toys).

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!!

Thanks ... Mike
xtal01
Oberstabsgefreiter
Oberstabsgefreiter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: South Carolina

Postby striker754 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:26 pm

probably but QUITE the grey area. you better send in the 42 to ATF and make sure its not a firearm. even though its on an m16 receiver both would be a machinegun. I really dont see how you get around the 42 not being a firearm in itself, cause you are obviously going to want to fit the full auto components.

it would take a lot of redesigning and communication with ATf i would think

be careful.
striker754
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Colorado

I agree, it must be made a semi-auto

Postby xtal01 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:19 pm

I agree, it must be made an approved semi-auto. I looked over the approval letter for the semi 42 BRP builds. It seems the idea is to change enough parts that standard full auto parts would not fit so it could not readily be changed back into a full auto gun.

I am thinking the BATF would classify it as a semi auto firearm. Changing the bolt and putting on a full auto registered M16 lower would change it from a semi auto to a full auto. I am thinking this is how BRP gets away with making their XMG (full auto M16 upper based on an MG34). They would not be allowed to build a "new" MG for public sale. They only ship this unit to FFL dealers. Therefore I reason it must be a semi-auto firearm.

Mike
xtal01
Oberstabsgefreiter
Oberstabsgefreiter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: South Carolina

Postby striker754 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:03 pm

well you better make sure. the way i see that is that you have a semi auto firearm and you are modifying it to fire more than one shot which is not legal.

better check with ATF and get some stuff in writing. changing a semi auto to full auto is not legal
striker754
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby jbaum » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:03 pm

If you have an M16 lower receiver, that's a gun. If what you add on top is not a firearm by itself, you can do what you want. The determining factor is whether the upper part (MG42 "upper receiver") is a gun by itself or not. For instance, having a short barreled upper receiver is not a crime, so long as you don't make it into a gun without the license. If you have the registered lower, you have a registered MG, so you can put the upper on the registered part and you're OK. If you put the upper on a non-registered part, it's an unregistered short barreled rifle. Whether the upper is a gun by itself can influence downstream possibilities.

The only one in authority to determine how far you can go and not have it be a gun is ATFE technology branch. You can start by drawing up a design and submitting it for evaluation. If they approve the design, fine. If not, they'll tell you the faults, and you can submit another design based on your remedies to the faults.

RE: BRP and the MG34 "upper"

Whether the "upper" is a gun by itself or not may have nothing to do with why they decided they want to sell it only through established gun dealers. Maybe they just want responsible sellers for their products, and they want to help support gun dealers. Where else are they going to sell it, Wal-Mart? Making something that you will only allow gun dealers to sell doesn't make it a gun. Ask BRP if it's considered a gun by itself... I'd bet they'd tell you. There's no overthinking the subject or speculation that way.
Last edited by jbaum on Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John@German<remove this>Manuals.com

http://www.GermanManuals.com
User avatar
jbaum
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: Lisbon, Ohio

Postby striker754 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:37 pm

i think if the upper is a gun you have an illegal machine gun. If its not a gun you are fine.
striker754
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby jbaum » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:31 pm

If the "upper" is a semi auto gun, and you add a machine gun (m16 lower), of course you have a machinegun. ONE machinegun. The lower part is the machine gun. It's registered to begin with, so the whole thing is now a legal registered MG.

So if there is already one machinegun, and you add a semi, you're saying that this now makes two machineguns? If you add a registered sear to a semi-auto AR15, you have one registered, legal machinegun. The sear is the machinegun, the semi-auto gun is still a semi auto gun when the sear is taken out. Having the two together doesn't make two machineguns. If it did, a hundreds of people would have a registered sear that they couldn't use for anything.

The sear is registered and papered as the MG. It doesn't make any difference what AR15 lower receiver you put it in, you don't suddenly see a lightning bolt and have two machineguns.
John@German<remove this>Manuals.com

http://www.GermanManuals.com
User avatar
jbaum
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: Lisbon, Ohio

Postby striker754 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:44 pm

im not sure, you better ask though. atf is never consistant. who knows if they treat a sear different than a semi gun. maybe they shouldn't. but do you want to find out?
striker754
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby jbaum » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:48 pm

"Treat a sear different than a semi gun"? You've got it backwards. The sear would be the same as the registered M16 receiver. The semi auto MG42 would act as the host AR15.... I see no difference. The registered parts are registered MGs, the non-registered parts are semi-auto guns.
John@German<remove this>Manuals.com

http://www.GermanManuals.com
User avatar
jbaum
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:41 pm
Location: Lisbon, Ohio

Postby striker754 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:53 pm

I guess so, never thought of it like that. Just thought ATF might view it different as they seem to have crooked views on lots of things. Better to be safe than sorry. As always, its up to you though!
striker754
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Checking with BRP and BATF

Postby xtal01 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:22 am

I have already (same time I put up my original post) e-mailed BRP and asked if the upper is considered a semi or just an upper for an M16.

I am also planning to write the BATF and find out there thoughts before I put a lot of time into this project.

In honest, I hadn't given it much thought till I looked at the BRP web site and saw the MG34 upper for an M16. It would be nice to have one gun (registed receiver) that I could use as a sub-gun, assult rifle and belt fed weapon.

Thanks .... Mike
xtal01
Oberstabsgefreiter
Oberstabsgefreiter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: South Carolina

Postby robertmcw » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:34 am

As far as the sear goes, I have a letter from ATF that states the sear is the machineegun and not the AR when the sear is installed. It is then OK to put a short barrel on the AR with the sear installed. If you remove the sear from the AR, you must also remove the short barrel and the AR reverts to semi status all by its little lonesome self. The letter states you 'should' notify ATF when you install the sear in the AR. I used to have two registered sears and did not want to have problems so I wrote them and that was how they replied.
robertmcw
Stabshauptmann
Stabshauptmann
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:52 am
Location: Houston

Postby robertmcw » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:59 am

Here is a copy of the letter. DISCLAIMER - this is an old letter from ATF and the current policy may or may not have changed. If you intend to rely on this letter, you shoulld independently verify it is still the current opinion of ATFE and that you do not violate any other state or local laws by installing these parts on your gun. Also please note this is an old letter and it was sent to an address I had over 10 years ago and that my address on the letter is not my current address. Ifyou need to contact me for any reason, please pm me and I will promptly reply.
Attachments
ATF.pdf
(118.26 KiB) Downloaded 4 times
robertmcw
Stabshauptmann
Stabshauptmann
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:52 am
Location: Houston

Postby robertmcw » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:07 am

Try this again as a jpg file.
Attachments
ATF_Page_2.jpg
ATF_Page_2.jpg (200.6 KiB) Viewed 450 times
ATF_Page_1.jpg
ATF_Page_1.jpg (545.85 KiB) Viewed 450 times
robertmcw
Stabshauptmann
Stabshauptmann
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:52 am
Location: Houston

Postby Cpt_Kirks » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:47 am

AR15 uppers are not title 1 or title 2 firearms.

You can have one lower (SA or FA) and as many uppers as you want. You will still have ONE firearm.

Look at Lakeside and their LM7 (1919 design based, belt fed .22lr AR15/M16 upper). It is not considered a firearm. They can ship it direct to you.

If you design an MG42 upper that CANNOT be made to function without an AR15/M16 lower, it will not be a firearm. There may be the usual BATFE tussle getting them to admit it, but in the end, it will not be a firearm.

I was working on this informally with another board member a while back. It is on the back burner while we get SA42's working.

Though, I am working on a mutant combination of an LM7 in a MG42-looking reciever. A .22lr SA42!
User avatar
Cpt_Kirks
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby robertmcw » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:01 am

Capt., that is the point - the sear is the gun even when installed in a title 1 firearm - it is not converted to a machine gun. Thus the addage, 'once a machinegun always a machinegun' does not always apply because the AR receiver never becomes a machinegun nor does the BRP upper for the XMG34 conversion. Likewise, I believe even if you took a registered MG42 semi and then somehow adapted a registered sear to it or used another registered f/a pack (from an H/K for example) or even a registered lower from some other firearm, the 42 would not magically become a machinegun and thus contraband whether it was a registered or unregistrered title 1 gun or not. Of course, if you have plans of doing that, I would also recommend you provide the completed weapon to ATFE so they can give you a clearance letter and not be cooling your heels with Jeff Skilling while your case is on appeal. :shock:
robertmcw
Stabshauptmann
Stabshauptmann
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:52 am
Location: Houston

Postby Cpt_Kirks » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:12 am

For the record, I don't have any FA weapons. In fact, I don't currently have any NFA devices whatsoever. I am planning on some SBR's soon, but am sticking to cranks and bumpfiring for my own guns.

That being said, I do have friends with FA guns that I get to shoot from time to time. Some of them have an 07/02 and have built a post-sample MG42, which ROCKS!

I have a lot of design ideas, most of which never even make it onto paper. I like my idea about a .22lr SA42-type gun more than an M16 upper better anyway. Mostly because I don't have an M16 lower and sometimes get to shoot the real thing.

Imagine a MG42 twin AA mount with a 8mm SA42 and a .22lr SA42-type. Why? Why not!

As I've mentioned too many times before, I like that kind of silliness:

Image
User avatar
Cpt_Kirks
Oberst
Oberst
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby drooling idiot » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:28 pm

nobodies suggesting buying a shrike ? :lol:
"good , bad, .....I'm the man with the gun." Image

Its amazing anything works right around here with a bunch of
over-age juvenile delinquents running the place.
User avatar
drooling idiot
General
General
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:30 am
Location: Philla ,PA

Postby none123 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:42 pm

drooling idiot wrote:nobodies suggesting buying a shrike ? :lol:
:shock: :shock:
none123
Oberstleutnant
Oberstleutnant
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: W. PA

Postby DARIVS ARCHITECTVS » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:13 pm

Shrike is too small a caliber for me. Only one step higher than a .22 Tippman 1/6 scale M1919 toy.

:mrgreen:
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS
Knight's Armoury

Image
User avatar
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: Minnesota

Next

Return to MG42 Build It Yourself



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests